On 1/29/2011 1:54 PM, Bill Fritz wrote: > Susan, you made the following statement (below). Let me make sure I > understand you correctly... Okay > When the "Tune-off" occurred between Jim Coleman Sr (ETD only) and > Virgil Smith (Aural only)... the general conclusion was that the > tunings were a tie... both times that they attempted this challenge. > Right? > yes > I believe Jim Coleman Sr was using a SAT tuner... a generation or two > behind today's RCT or Verituner or TuneLab (which is engineer speak > for today's tuners being more comprehensive in their inharmonicity > analyses). > An ETD in the hands of Jim equaled the Aural tuning of Virgil's. So > with Virgil being one of the premier aural tuners in his time, in what > way was the ETD's tuning quality limited? In Jim's hands, it was very good. He knew how to get the best out of it. One assumes the pianos were very fine, also. When I said "with an unadorned ETD, quality will be limited" I was speaking to Duaine, who openly said that he is not an adequate aural tuner, and that in Jim's class he hadn't been able to hear the examples, and also that almost all his work is uprights. All these things suggest that he almost certainly would not be able to get the best out of an ETD when using it for poorly scaled pianos. And that was all I was saying. My own experience of this kind of tuning is limited to following two totally unqualified retiree "tuners" who bought ETD's and set up businesses. It was hard for me to believe that anyone could possibly turn out such horrible tunings! They were a public menace, and I doubt that the machines were to blame. I suspect they would make Duaine sound like a genius. To sum up: the quality is in the tuner, not the tuning aid. If the ear of the tuner is limited, and the pianos are challenging, then the quality gotten from the ETD is going to be limited. > In some cases we've already heard from other tuners who say an ETD's > tuning of a poorly designed spinet is better than the aural chasing of > the same piano. They said that. I believe a couple others disagreed? It seems to me, it will depend partly on the quality of the ETD and the skill of its user, but mostly on the capacity of the aural tuner, which will end up sounding the best. > Are you perhaps referring to an unlimited time period used to tune a > Concert piano?... yes > vs pounding out 4-5 pianos a day, 5-6 days a week? <shudder> > I can partially understand your comments on the former, that's nice ... > but certainly not the latter. I sincerely doubt that the bulk of RPT's punching out 4-5 pianos a day, 5-6 days a week can ensure their tuning would _always_ pass the RPT Tuning test, like the ETD can facilitate. > I don't think bulk tuning like that should have to pass anything like > the RPT test standard. > And finally, if the Tuning committees admit that using an ETD on all > parts of the Tuning exam would yield scores approaching 100%... then > how is that ETD tuning limited? What kind of piano is the test being held on? What I was trying to imply is that the ETD quality was going to be limited when someone with little knowledge of aural tuning was using it on troublesome cheap pianos on a day to day basis. > Personally: I think there are several different issues being bounced > around throughout this series of threads... > 1) which can produce a better tuning -- ETD or Aural (I'll say both & > neither... it depends on the hands & ears guiding the tuning hammer) yes > 2) which method gives you a better "A440"? A tuning fork or an ETD? > Let's take 100 of each, calibrate the forks & ETD's, and then over the > next 2 months test the "A440"s tuned, under various temperatures, > environments, etc. I'll bet $50 on the ETD. Pardon me, but in day to day work, even for concerts, within a cent or so, DOES IT MATTER?? > 3) if both can produce very good tunings, then in light of the highest > tuning importance being a) stability, then b) unisons, then > c) octaves, then d) temperament... it would seem that it should be an > individual's choice as to whether one could or should be an Aural vs > ETD tuner, since stability & unisons are determined by the > Technician's competence, rather than an argument of the ETD vs the 4:2 > stretch. Of course it's an individual's choice, assuming they can produce good results > 4) if one could pass the RPT Tuning test w/ an ETD (and at least > understand the concepts & why's of beats & 4:2's etc), then why > doesn't the PTG allow a 100% ETD test? You can ask the people who set up the tests. But, like I said above, the power to use an ETD at 100% test level on a good grand in a test situation may not guarantee adequate use of one in less than ideal conditions. Even so, it's up to the Guild. Perhaps the aural tuning part is a way to test the level of dedication to the profession? That someone is willing to put in the training time to be competent in traditional tuning? You can ask them. Perhaps there is still some feeling that someone should be able to manage a simple tuning even if the batteries happen to be low? > 5) if both RPT's & Associates both pay the same dues, when why is one > group "Taxed without Representation"? I thought about this a little back when I was an Associate. I assume it's to try to get them to undergo the ordeal of the testing. It doesn't seem to be the most effective motivation so far. > 6) if new tools become available which can equal or surpass "the > test", then why are we completing the test the old way? (I'm sure as > heck not going back to cursive writing... typing is far superior for me.) I am getting very tired of hearing all about the test .... isn't your universe any larger than the PTG testing procedures? > 7) if we are going to be considered "professionals" like Issac Stein > mentioned in his recent PTJ editorial... a) why are RPT's not being > re-tested on a regular basis... like the Professional Engineers & > their licenses (every 2-4 years, depending on the State) he refers > to? And b) why no "continuing education requirements" such as Natl or > Regional PTG conventions or minimum number of Chapter Technicals > attended for an RPT to maintain their "status"? Teachers & Engineers > have these requirements... as well as other "professions". Do you really want to be more like a plumber? For me, one great advantage of piano technology is its unlicensed unregulated nature, which allows each person to decide their own way of doing business. Do you want to throw that away, and have everyone following onerous rules and having to undergo expensive retesting and continuing education as a requirement before they can work? > 8) if today's RPT Tuning tests are indeed what anyone must pass to > become an RPT... then how is that status impacted by Jim Coleman Sr's > statement in the Tuning Examination Source Book foreward (reprint > 2002) "We set our scoring and tolerance system so that 80 percent of > our present members (Craftsman) would pass at a grade of 80 > percent"... implying that 20% of those remaining grandfathered RPT's > would fail today's test... A little mercy, perhaps? And the realization that if the testing and continuous education requirements become difficult and annoying, members will leave in droves. Tuners are independent cusses, and I like it that way. > So Susan, other than trying to understand your "ETD's are limited" > comment... Just PUT IT BACK IN CONTEXT, please. People seem to have taken one look at that, and freaked right out. ETD's are limited by the competence of the people using them. Do you find that so impossible to agree with? > I also wanted to put on paper the other sub-issues I think I hear... > and that should be addressed if this PTG organization is to grow & > improve. Continuous Process Improvement. Similar to the piano > itself... a Technician is either improving themselves, or going > downhill. "What are you doing for your own improvement, lately?" If you try to standardize this ongoing improvement, and then force people to conform, you may find the PTG ends up shrinking instead of growing. At its best, good tuning is an art form, and doesn't submit to regimentation very well. > PS A hearty THANK YOU for this pianotech group's comments, arguments, > and thoughts: I have certainly appreciate each & every constructive > opinion on the various topics... and I for one appreciate the sharing > of info & wisdom by the many. It helps me to become a better Technician. > Best Regards... Bill Fritz, St Louis And to you ... Susan Kline, small town in Oregon > > From: Susan Kline <skline at peak.org> > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Counts .......Duaine > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:17:04 -0800 > >> SNIP>> Everyone here has said the >> same thing over and over: the ETD tuning quality is limited unless you >> have the aural capacity to see whether or not the machine is giving >> you what it should. There are many circumstances where what the >> ETD tells you has to be adjusted for the particular piano you >> are tuning. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110129/f1f8b0a9/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC